• uniquely-ironic said on Sep 08, 2008....

  interested to see responces.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Depending on how deep you want to government is the very basis of an organized society.  It's a little like asking what is the use of a pantry in an organized kitchen.  Yeah I suppose you could organize a kitchen without all that cupboard space but to be honest I've not the slightest clue as to how you would accomplish such a thing. 
   
  The same kind of goes for politics.  In the ancient times if I wanted something from you I choped your head off and took it.  This way of doing things was rather innefficient and became increasingly inefficient as inteligence became more and more prevelant and important. We realized we needed rules about what and how and ultimately once you get a group that is larger than say one hundred people you can't sit down and vote on every issue.  Someone has to be in charge (really in groups over about ten there needs to be a leader) and politics is how we decide, you know without swords and guns.
   
  Again I'm sure there is someway that we could designate leaders and make decisions that effect us all without politics.  Just like I'm certain we could devise a system where all the books in a library are left on the floor and we still know where they are, but it's not as elegantly efficient as this.

• crybabylu said on Sep 08, 2008....

  unique---me too!

  sean-----very well put!

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I could go into more detail but you'd have to kinda narrow your question.

• crybabylu said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I see what you mean, sean, but I thought your answer was right on. thanks!

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I'm gad you liked it.  I was just saying that I kinda stopped because I didn't want to write a thesis here which I easily good have.

• bloc said on Sep 08, 2008....

  to provide security, and all the real debates in politics revolve around the extent the government should be involved.
  
  some obvious examples:
  1. military
  2. police
  3. fire department
  4. contract enforcement
  
  some less obvious examples
  1. infrastructure
  2. basic education
  3. banking insurance
  4. various kinds of regulation like environmental, stock exchange, labor rights
  5. katrina (hello!)
  
  Let's look at a current event. The nationalization of fannie mae and freddy mac. Republicans just nationalized these private entities because of security. If they failed our economy would suffer greatly. Remember this the next time some dishonest republican tries to call Obama a socialist.
  
  

• crybabylu said on Sep 09, 2008....

  bloc----right now, all I am hearing on the Fox News channel is that word in reference to Obama.  I guess it is easy to throw that word around.

  aren't you surprised at what the polls are now showing?  I am!

• bloc said on Sep 09, 2008....

  I've stopped trying to predict the behavior of human beings ;) I also don't trust polls too much. Remember the ones that had Kerry way ahead?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  I know that what I'm asking is a tall order and I'm really asking more for an opinion than for facts bloc.  I know this because economics is terribly similar to ecology, you're never 100% certain what will happen when you introduce something to the system or take something out.  That said what do you think would have happened if Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac had been allowed to fail?

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  SR: "This way of doing things...swords and guns"
  
  Where do you get this crap? Like I said before, you need a new hobby. Like reading.
  
  It's actually quite the opposite. The 'lord and master' imposed his will on the population for his purposes. Self governing collectives were always crushed. It was never a voluntary consensus to be governed by some 'superior' from the outside. All government is created, imposed and enforced by the force of arms.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Bloc: "The nationalization... a socialist."
  
  Actually Fannie Mae aka the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA).
  
  Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States (As a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), by redesignation of the National Mortgage Association of Washington, April 5, 1938).
  
  In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation. Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).
  
  It did quite well till it was privatized.

• andora said on Sep 09, 2008....

  hi sweetness,
  
  gov is supposed to hold the balance point between the diverse groups that create it
  
  religion creates agreement between individuals about what they believe and what it is they want to create within that agreement field
  
  its a broad question and surprisingly enough I actually located a simple answer
  
  hope all is well with you and papajack, me good, very good
  
  aloha
  

• crybabylu said on Sep 09, 2008....

  bloc---that's what i think about polls too!

  Andora----An excellent answer!  Thank you much!  Aloha

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  From the Journal of Business & Economics Research – July 2007 Volume 5, Number 7
  
  There Is No Accounting For Fannie Mae
  
  RamMohan R. Yallapragada, (E-mail: ryallapragada@gmail.com), Fayetteville State University
  
  ABSTRACT
  
  The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, Fannie Mae), was created in 1938, as a part of the New Deal. In 2003, regulators discovered serious accounting problems that may cost Fannie Mae several billion dollars in losses. In 2003, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO) investigated Fannie Mae and found a culture of corruption, arrogance, and pervasive accounting violations in the company. Executives at Fannie Mae cooked books to pocket an extra twenty-seven million dollars in bonuses. This paper presents the accounting improprieties at Fannie Mae and the consequences that followed its investigation.
  
  PRIVATIZATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC: DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY, A HUD REPORT, July 1996
  
  Based on the analysis of this report, the Department concludes that there is no compelling reason to fully privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at this time. Specifically, the Department believes that the benefits achieved from full privatization would not offset the financial uncertainties and likely increases in borrowing costs that would be associated with full privatization.

• bloc said on Sep 09, 2008....

  @sean
  that level of economics is a little above my understanding. Fannie and Freddy from my understanding keep mortgage rates low and allow homeownership for many that otherwise wouldn't be able to buy. A lot of economics seems like a shell game to me and this is one example. the money people are able to borrow due to fannie and freddy keep the economy propped up to some degree. Taking it away would have an immediate impact on the money floating around and the economy in general.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  To be honest bloc I don't think ANYBODY understands it at that level.  At that level I think it's all hypothetical.  Which why I compared it to an ecosystem.  You never really know what will happen when you introduce a new animal or take out an existing one.  The best you can do is have a good guess based on what you've seen in the past.

• bloc said on Sep 09, 2008....

  i wrote my last comment right before leaving the office and on my way home NPR did a segment on fannie and freddie. The economist said that many many banks, all over the world, hold a lot of bonds in fannie and freddy. He threw out some number for the amount of debt they hold that I don't recall precisely, but said that it was larger than the amount of pretty much every country other than the US. If those bonds became virtually worthless, i.e. fannie and freddy were allowed to fail, that it would instantly end almost all lending in the world!
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  So ultimately it wasn't an option to let them fail.  I mean call it socialism or corporate welfare if you must, but letting them fail would almost literally be like failing to resisitate the goose that lays the golden egg.

• bloc said on Sep 09, 2008....

  i don't believe it's socialism, but I'm pointing out the fact that any time a liberal says that it's in our interest to have the government do X the right cries socialism. It's a dishonest smear which is illustrated by their actions with fannie and freddie. 
  
  
  Social security is a good example. Social security is not a retirement plan, it's an insurance plan. If you as a young adult gets injured and are unable to work for the rest of your life you will get social security. If we privatized social security all of those people would lose their income. Sounds like it isn't an option to privatize social security either.

• bloc said on Sep 09, 2008....

  one note, when republicans "nationalize" they like to do socialism for the elites and free markets for the rest of us.
  
  
  "Barack Obama objected to reports Monday that the ousted heads of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may receive lucrative severance packages and asked the Bush administration to ensure their "poor leadership" isn't rewarded.
  
  
  Obama was reacting to a report Monday in The New York Times on a consulting firm's analysis that found departing Fannie Mae head Daniel Mudd stands to collect $9.3 million in severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation under the terms of his employment contract, provided his dismissal is deemed to be "without cause.""
  
  The republican platform: Fuck the disabled vet on social security, but make sure the failed CEO's get millions on the government tab.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  A failed CEO should get nothing.  He failed that's the penalty.
   
  Honestly I've never been certain that a human being who is both unable to care for himself and is likewise isn't loved enough to be cared for has a right to live.  Way I understand it in ancient times when an Eskimo was too old to hunt and had passed on all of his wisdom they put him on an iceflow and wished him well.
   
  I however am willing to cede two things.  One is that there is only so much room at the top (even when you account for new bussinesses and the such) and if you force the old guys to stay at the top that none of the young guys will ever advance, and when they do it'll all of a sudden when everybody over them dies all at once.  So pretty  much only ever third generation (or so) prospers and those caught in the center are fucked.  *which as I understand it is a nutshell of why a mandatory retirement age was put in place*
   
  The other is that desperate people do bad things.  It's better for all of us to pay a few extra dollars in taxes, to put some guy on welfar than for him to start mugging people and as I see it those really are the options.  Give the poor a loaf of bread, or wait for them to steal your sandwich at gunpoint.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  when a vet has ptsd and starts beating his wife it's hard to continue loving him. Should we send him out on a piece of ice?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  Is he going to be able to function in the world?  I'm not saying that we should just walk down the street and shoot everybody who is homeless but yes, if you can no longer be a productive member of society then I don't really see why we are forced to care for you.
   
  That said a vet with ptsd (particularly post draft) willingly put himself at risk to defend this country and was working for the government and suffered his injuries working for the government so I can justify them footing the bill. 

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  the other problem I have with your view is that even if someone is loved their loved ones may not have the resources to pay for their needs. Especially medical bills that can be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  Once everything is stripped away I have same basic problem with this that I have with pro-lifers.  My life, my choice.  If I CHOOSE to give to the charity of my choice to help pay for person x, fine.  But I shouldn't be taxed to pay for other people, or at least as little as possible.  Just like I should be free to do what I want with my body I should be free to do what I want with my money.
   
  Medical unfortunatly is a very tangled web as I'm starting to read up on it and I question what things could be done to bring down the overall cost of medical procedures.  I think one thing would be making it harder to file suit against a doctor and thus lower their insurance. 
   
  The other is something that I've been researching and I don't know how true it is.  Basically it comes down to the idea that the expensive part of making medicine is R&D and FDA testing and that this research is done almost exclusively in the US and then everybody else with their differenec in laws and different medical structure basically don't pay us back once we've finished doing the job.  But I don't know how true that is but it would make sense.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  "I think one thing would be making it harder to file suit against a doctor and thus lower their insurance. "
  
  This is a red herring. All stats I've seen put the cost of malpractice suits as a tiny fraction of overall medical costs. I think there are two major problems with our system.
  
  1. and this will be controversial, americans lead an unhealthy lifestyle, particularly our diets.
  
  2. our system is made to make profit, not provide good care to people.
  
  "But I shouldn't be taxed to pay for other people, or at least as little as possible.  Just like I should be free to do what I want with my body I should be free to do what I want with my money."
  
  I have two issues with this. First, you are not an island. The money you make isn't based solely on you. If you were born in africa you wouldn't make what you do here. We owe a lot to the society we were born into!
  
  Second, fannie and freddie. Why should you pay taxes to bail them out. You already answered this, but it reiterates my first point. Your money is more than just your money. We are not islands unto ourselves. Our neighbors well being directly affects our well being.
  
  
   
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  The amount of malpractice suits isn't particularly important.  It's the insurance they need in the first place.  What percent does the insurance make up.
   
  1. Americans do lead an unhealthy life style, I would argue our lack of exercise is more important than our poor diets but still I agree.
   
  2.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  diet is convincingly linked to our biggest chronic diseas. Check a the book 'the china study' if interested.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  I'll look into it.  I still wonder how many of those diseases would be negated in part or in whole by someone who remains in good (or excellent) shape.  I mean I know he's an extreme example but dear god.  Micheal Phelps eats like an entire cow every day.  I don't see him developing diabetes.  Again I'm aware that he's the extreme but most people can't even tell you when the last time was they walked around the block.
   
  My second point since SC was kind enough to cut it was it doesn't seem like socialized medicine has been  fantastically sucessful other places. 
   
  And keeping Fannie and Freddie alive is basically they are the ones paying my bills.  It's not quite the same as the guy across the street.  The reason you take care of the guy across the street is so he doesn't mug you.
   
  Maybe I missed the moral of a white picket fense and growing up and the American dream.  But isn't the ultimate goal of people in general to be independent?  To be in effect an island?  To live that romantic notion (that in many cases is the internet) where we interact with other humans because we want to not because we are forced.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  "I'll look into it.  I still wonder how many of those diseases would be negated in part or in whole by someone who remains in good (or excellent) shape. "
  
  Speculation is no substitute for peer reviewed research. Check out that book.
  
  " Micheal Phelps eats like an entire cow every day. "
  
  Seriously, are you serious? He's very young. Chronic disease sets in later most of the time.
  
  "The reason you take care of the guy across the street is so he doesn't mug you."
  
  That's one of many reasons. If the guy down the street is able to become a productive citizen then you also support him because it's good for the economy in general including your business.
  
  "But isn't the ultimate goal of people in general to be independent?  To be in effect an island?  To live that romantic notion (that in many cases is the internet) where we interact with other humans because we want to not because we are forced."
  
  I think you switched subjects here. If you live in society then you live in society and are not an island. If you want to be an island check out the book and movie 'into the wild' otherwise you aren't an island.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Michael-Phelps?urn=oly,100671
   
  It's not a whole cow literaly.  But 12k calories?  That's just a little less than I eat in a week.
   
  How long do you support somebody before you just write them off as useless.  There are worthless people in this world you know.  I do agree that if they can be productive it's better for everybody.
   
  How independent does one need to be before they can be considered an "island"  I mean if you extrapolate out far enough even an island isn't an island when we dump in the ocean.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  " I mean if you extrapolate out far enough even an island isn't an island when we dump in the ocean."
  
  Are you trying to make my point for me? ;)
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  At what point do we get to say that while I'm not going to take it to that extreme?  At what point am I allowed to say, sure a butterfly in havana might have been the x factor that drove Katrina from a Cat 4 to a Cat 5 but I'm still not going to call Terminex for a my ex girlfriend.

• bloc said on Sep 10, 2008....

  figuring that out is what makes life fun and interesting. I believe this is why ideologies like communism and libertarianism are popular. They allow their adherents to be mentally lazy and reduce everything down to two simple absolutes. 

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  Interesting philosophy.  I've always marveled at how some people can have so much fun with the journey.  The journey in most cases bore me.  There is simply what works, what doesn't work, why it does or doesn't work so possibly some elements of it can be incorporated into the next plan and which way to err when both sides seem to be even. 

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  No need to explain really. Just watch the telly...
  
  Excerpts from Congress Can No Longer Ignore Corporate Control of the Media by US Rep Bernie Sanders
  
  

  Television is the means by which most Americans get their “news.”
  
  Without exception, every major network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest. Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing Australian who already owns a significant portion of the world’s media. His network has close ties to the Republican Party, and among his “fair and balanced” commentators is Newt Gingrich.
  
  NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world — and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party, has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other industries. Former CEO Jack Welch was one of the leaders in shutting down American plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and Mexico.
  
  ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions.
  
  CBS is owned by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VH1, TNN, CMT, 39 broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.
  
  [...]
  
  If television largely ignores the reality of life for the majority of Americans, corporate radio is just plain overt in its right-wing bias. In a nation that cast a few million more votes for Al Gore and Ralph Nader than for George Bush and Pat Buchanan, there are dozens of right-wing talk show programs. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Howie Carr, Oliver North, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger — these are only a few of the voices that day after day pound a right-wing drumbeat into the heartland of this country.

  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  And this has exactly what to do with either the original question or the current conversation?
   
  I know you cut and paste, but you've generally shown yourself to be capable of reading.  Was this the right blog, or are you c&ping other people's thoughts so fast that you don't even know where to put them?

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  As a supplement, an excerpt from the Media Reform Information Center blog
  
  

  In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
  
  In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Again can you please explain what this has to do with the price of tea in China?  I'm hoping there is some kind of connection.  We are all aware that there is a gathering of power.  Such has happened since the dawn of time, occasionally we intentionally rewind the clock to slow this progress but ultimately its inevitable. 

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Pardon me. Are you making a point? I must have missed your comments.
  
  When you got to the "Which [is] why I compared it to an ecosystem" bit I lost interest in the rest of your cartoon strip.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  SR aka the cannibal: Are you going to place these in your personal Mein Kampf?
  
  

  Honestly I've never been certain that a human being who is both unable to care for himself and is likewise isn't loved enough to be cared for has a right to live.
  
  Is he going to be able to function in the world?  I'm not saying that we should just walk down the street and shoot everybody who is homeless but yes, if you can no longer be a productive member of society then I don't really see why we are forced to care for you.

  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Ah, your standard ostrich technique of ignoring your superiors and hoping we won't take notice of you.  I'm glad it works out for you.
   
  There is a vast difference between not keeping somebody a live and killing them.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  SR aka the cannibal: I generally don't read comic strips. I definitely don't read neo-Nazi comic strips.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  You might want to consider diversifying.  You're missing out not only some great literature but also on powerful learning tools.  It's funny that when you decide to point out something in my writings you always point out the most inteligent part instead of the silliest.  It makes it so obvious when you've gotten in over your head.
   
  *roasts sheltercrow over an open fire*  Yum yum!

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Intelligence and history are definitely not your strong point. I would suggest a primer course on human beings first though.
  
  As an aside: I have, over the years, listened to nitwits exclaim how informed [superior in your case] they are all the while indulging in telling self made fairy tales.
  
  With very few exceptions most of your 'superior' fairy tale drivel is just too childish to read. I usually just pass it over after the first few lines. There really are better thing to do besides compel you to respond with your usual defensive creepy stuff.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Where is my history faulty?  I'd like an example.
   
  Oh and feel free to call me Cannibal, it's kinda cute that we have an inside joke.  :-P

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  Whatever... I should call you Hannibal... Anyway... a fairly easy explanation from from straightdope.com
  
  It's a cliche that the Eskimo put their old folks out on the ice to die when they can no longer contribute. Does this really happen? Do Eskimos really abandon their elderly?
  
  The last reported case was in 1939, but the custom was a rarity long before that. In any case, the common perception of taking Granny out to the nearest ice floe and setting her adrift is wrong. I can't prove it never happened, but it wasn't the usual method.
  
  [...]
  
  Where it was practiced, senilicide was rare except during famines. As long as there was enough food to go around, everyone got their share, including the relatively unproductive.
  
  [...]
  
  The popular legend that the Eskimos put their old people on ice floes and set them adrift is wrong in detail, but it's not terribly far off in the broad strokes. I can't say for sure how this particular idea got started, but it may have come from the movie The Savage Innocents (1959) starring Anthony Quinn or the novel it was based on, Top of the World (1950) by Hans Ruesch.
  
  [...]
  
  Further reading:
  
  
  "Senilicide and Invalidicide among the Eskimos" by Rolf Kjellström in Folk: Dansk etnografisk tidsskrift, volume 16/17 (1974/75)
  
  
  "Notes on Eskimo Patterns of Suicide" by Alexander H. Leighton and Charles C. Hughes in Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, volume 11 (1955)
  
  
  Eskimos and Explorers, 2d ed., by Wendell H. Oswalt (1999)

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  LoL.  So in short you've proven that it did happen, albeit rarely, so infact you've made my point.  Idiot.  If it happened often enough to be recorded then it's good enough to be used as an example.  It doesn't even have to be factual.  Referencing you as a lemming (which you are) is still legit even if lemmings don't actually migrate off cliffs every few years.  Even if we know that this is in fact a myth.
   
  Still I'll just be the bigger person since you're actually on topic, which is difficult for you.  I'll find another example to use in the future.  Thank you for educating me.
   
   

• sheltercrow said on Sep 12, 2008....

  You have missed a point my dime-a-dozen friend. The "senilicide was rare except during famines" could be a description for any culture. It wasn't specific to the Eskimo.
  
  In the same vein the Greeks and Romans used to 'expose' the children they didn't want.
  
  Since you never quite know what your talking about how can anything be off topic to you?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 12, 2008....

  Ok.  Like I said that is terribly close to on topic.  Ok anl

• sheltercrow said on Sep 12, 2008....

  "politics and government" have no meaning when these millionaire Schlock Jocks spew hate for money...
  
  BILL MOYERS JOURNAL: September 12, 2008
  
  BILL MOYERS JOURNAL takes a look at the industry of the Schlock Jock...
  
  >More about the power of talk radio
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 13, 2008....

  What's with the bullshit music video?  Politics and government give meaning to talk radio.  Even the most outrageous of them, Rush, wouldn't exist if not for politics and government.

Comment on "can u explain?"

Currently tagged	government Culture lord and master balance and agreement political science politics Current Events (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment